9 ms·

I suspect this data is made "anonymous" and sold to insurance companies and misc data brokers. If it's linked to my insurance company, I don't want to jack my r

• mindslight 10mo ago
  It would be an extremely totalitarian dynamic to be persecuted with the CFAA for modifying a device you own based on part of it having been (nonconsensually!) programmed by a third party to upload data to their own server. You own the device, so anything you do within that device is authorized. And the code that uploads the data is authorized to do so because it was put there by the same company that owns [controls] the servers themselves. I do know that the CFAA essentially gets interpreted to mean whatever the corpos want it to mean - it's basically an anti-witch law - so it's best to steer clear. And this goes double with with the current overtly pay-to-play regime. But just saying. (Awesome description btw! I really wish I'd find a buying guide for many makes/models of cars that detail how well they can be unshackled from digital authoritarianism. A Miata is not the type of vehicle I am in the market for (which is unfortunate, for several reasons))
  • emidln 10mo ago
    If you can be prosecuted for guessing urls you can be prosecuted for sending garbage data in a way you know will be uploaded to a remote system.
    • mindslight 10mo ago
      As a strictly logical assertion, I do not agree. Guessing URLs is crafting new types of interactions with a server. The built in surveillance uploader is still only accessing the server in the way it has already been explicitly authorized. Trying to tie some nebulous TOS to a situation that the manufacturer has deliberately created reeks of the same type of website-TOS shenanigans courts have (actually!) struck down. As a pragmatic matter, I do completely understand where you're coming from (my second paragraph). In a sense, if one can get to the point of being convicted they have been kind of fortunate - it means they didn't kill themselves under the crushing pressure of a team of federal persecutors whose day job is making your life miserable.
      • monerozcash 10mo ago
        >(A) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer; If your goal is to deliberately "poison" their data as suggested before, it's kind of obvious that you are knowingly causing the transmission of information in an effort to intentionally cause damage to a protected computer without authorization to cause such damage. >Trying to tie some nebulous TOS to a situation that the manufacturer has deliberately created reeks of the same type of website-TOS shenanigans courts have (actually!) struck down. This has very little to do with the TOS though, unless the TOS specifically states that you are in fact allowed to deliberately damage their systems. And no, causing damage to a computer does not refer to hackers turning computers into bombs. But rather specifically situations like this.
        • Xss3 10mo ago
          Any reasonable programmer (a peer) would say an unencrypted system that doesnt validate data is an unprotected system.
          • monerozcash 10mo ago
            It's a legal term, has nothing to do with technical protections. Practically any device connected to the internet is a "protected computer". The only case I can think of where the defendant prevailed on their argument that the computer in question was not a "protected computer" was US v Kane. In that case the court held that an offline Las Vegas video poker machine was not sufficiently connected to interstate commerce to qualify as a "protected computer".
        • mindslight 10mo ago
          A computer being supplied with false data which it then stores is not damaging the computer - hence there being a provision about fraud. But for this case it's not fraud either, as the person supplying the data is not obtaining anything of value from the false data.
    • vkou 10mo ago
      You think criminalizing guessing URLs is unreasonable. What about guessing passwords? Should someone be prosecuted for just trying to bruteforce them until one works?
      • nkrisc 10mo ago
        How do I know which URLs of a website are legal to visit and which are illegal?
        • vkou 10mo ago
          I can't say I've ever struggled to make this determination, but I don't make a habit of trying random ports, endpoints, car doors, or brute-force guessing URLs.
          • sayamqazi 10mo ago
            But it was very tempting when i saw that my national exam results were sent to us in a mail as nationalexam.com/results/2024/my-roll-number. Why would i not try different values in the last part.
            • monerozcash 10mo ago
              Try it once to see if it works, you'll probably be fine. Find out that it works, and then proceed to look up various other people? Whether you're fine depends entirely on whether or not you genuinely believe that you're supposed to be accessing that stuff.
      • wakawaka28 10mo ago
        Passwords are different from URLs because URLs are basically public, whereas passwords aren't supposed to be. Furthermore, this is not 1995. Everyone who is in the industry providing IT services is supposed to know that basic security measures are necessary. The physical analogy would be, walking through an unlocked and unmarked door that faces the street in a busy city, versus picking a lock on that door and then walking through it.
    • rockskon 10mo ago
      The DoJ lost the case they went after for someone guessing URLs.
      • monerozcash 10mo ago
        They lost it because they charged in the wrong jurisdiction. Also come on, you can't reasonable describe that case as being about "guessing urls". It's the associated chat logs that really make the case.
      • red-iron-pine 10mo ago
        link me
  • deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
  • monerozcash 10mo ago
    Prosecuting someone for deliberately injecting garbage data into another persons system hardly seems totalitarian. > You own the device, so anything you do within that device is authorized You're very clearly describing a situation where at least some of the things you're doing aren't happening on your own device. >I do know that the CFAA essentially gets interpreted to mean whatever the corpos want it to mean - it's basically an anti-witch law FWIW this is simply not true. The essence of the CFAA is "do not deliberately do anything bad to computers that belong to other people". The supreme court even recently tightened the definition of "unauthorized access" to ensure that you can't play silly games with terms of service and the CFAA. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-783_k53l.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-783_k53l.pdf
    • elzbardico 10mo ago
      My device. I generate whatever the fuck the data I want. If you log it, kiss my ass.
      • monerozcash 10mo ago
        Sure, I have the same attitude when it comes to the government telling me that I'm not allowed to use drugs. Doesn't mean I'm in the clear from a legal point of view. However, it's worth clarifying that the important detail isn't generating the data, but sending it. Particularly the clearly stated malicious intent of "poisoning" their data. This seems like exactly what the lawmakers writing CFAA sought to criminalize, and is frankly much better justified than perhaps the bulk of things they tend to come up with. >(A) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer; Doesn't seem exactly unfair to me, even if facing federal charges over silly vandalism is perhaps a bit much. Of course, you'd realistically be facing a fine.
        • Xss3 10mo ago
          Could you argue the computer was unprotected? No encryption is wild.
  • deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
  • AngryData 10mo ago
    If you were to purposefully try to poison/damage their dataset and admitted as such you probably wouldn't win without spending an unreasonable amount of money on lawyer fees. Without admitting anything though and claiming ignorance it would probably be pretty easy to get dismissed, provided you are able to spend atleast some money on a lawyer.
  • cameldrv 10mo ago
    It might be interesting for an enterprising lawyer to try to flip this around. Suppose you send a letter to your car manufacturer saying that, as the owner of the car, you are prohibiting them from accessing the location of the car or performing unauthorized software updates and that any attempt to circumvent this will result in criminal prosecution for unauthorized access to your computer.
• andrei_says_ 10mo ago
  As anonymous as there are Miatas in your neighborhood parking in your driveway.
• culi 10mo ago
  Then do the opposite. Poisoned data that can improve your insurance rates
  • micromacrofoot 10mo ago
    they use the data mostly to charge you more, you can't really get the price all that lower I've had a clean driving record for 30 years and I'm still paying the junk rates most other people get
    • tavavex 10mo ago
      So, it's like credit scores, basically? Advertise a happy, meritocratic future for consumers, where the "better"/more responsible ones will reap massive rewards at the expense of the "worse" consumers, and then keep adjusting the brackets until the system is only used punitively - you don't really get anything from a high score nowadays, your only goal is clearing a certain low bar to avoid negative consequences.
      • micromacrofoot 10mo ago
        Yeah exactly... it's stick or no stick, the carrot is the razor thin margin only used to keep you away from the competitors. At this point car insurance has gotten so bad that it's becoming normal that you can save hundreds of dollars by switching providers every 6 months. These companies are probably making millions on people who are just too exhausted to switch constantly.
  • MisterTea 9mo ago
    if(velocity > 55) velocity = 55;